Resuming
the debate adjourned on October 7, 2008, on the motion for third reading of
Bill 50, An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société de
protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a delight to be able to speak
on behalf of animals in the province of Ontario, not only the two-legged kind,
but others.

I
have to start by saying-somebody just gave me this quote, which I really do
have to share with the House: "To err is human; to forgive, canine."
You've got to like that.

I
also want to acknowledge that we have in the House Mr. Michael O'Sullivan and
Mr. Tim Trow from the Humane Society of Canada and the Toronto Humane Society.
Welcome to Queen's Park again. They have oft been in attendance here, both
deputing before the committee and, of course, in attendance in the House for
debate of this bill.

You
will recall that prior to third reading, second reading and first reading, we
in the New Democratic Party had some serious concerns with Bill 50. One of the
concerns that we had was with section 6. In response to hundreds of e-mails,
mostly orchestrated by the humane societies that this would affect,
particularly the Toronto Humane Society, we were concerned that this particular
section be removed. We didn't get what we wanted. We got something, however. I
want to read the amendment that the government brought in. They added, "A
corporation or other entity that was an affiliated society on April 3, 2008 may
continue to use" these names, i.e. "`humane society,' ... even if it
is no longer an affiliated society."

There
are a couple of problems with that. First and foremost and, I think, somewhat
to the relief of those humane societies that are living in fear of this bill
passing third reading-humane societies like the Humane Society of Canada, the
Mississauga Humane Society, the Burlington Humane Society-they might find some
solace in the fact that I really do believe, based on legal advice, that this
section is ultra vires. What does that mean? It means that I don't think the
OSPCA or the McGuinty government of Ontario has the legal jurisdiction or right
to remove the name of someone who calls themselves a humane society, whether we
pass this or not. I want to let stakeholders who are concerned about this know
that this really is covered by federal law. I have to admit, it's still
egregious that it's here. It's certainly a slap in the face of others who are
doing wonderful work with animals, who want to call themselves
"humane." But based on some legal opinions that we've seen-in
particular, I'm going to cite one of the deputants, the Burlington Humane
Society, which sought a lawyer's advice on this. The name "humane" is
descriptive, for starters. We can't force someone to call themselves humane, or
inhumane, for that matter.

Despite
the fact that we in the opposition couldn't get this section removed, I do
commend all of those stakeholders who raised a problem with this particular
section, who called for its amendment or repeal. Because of their efforts, we
at least got this amendment.

Despite
the amendment and despite their concerns, I would say to have some confidence,
going forward, in using the name that you've traditionally used, and let them
come get you, because I don't think they can. So, there's that.

Here
are the concerns about the bill that were raised by some of the deputants.

First
of all, oversight of the overseers: There was a general concern from many
deputants about who was going to oversee the OSPCA, whom somebody could appeal
to if they didn't like the ruling, etc. I'm going to deal with that.

I
believe that in part I've dealt with section 6, but I'll continue.

The
other aspect of this legislation which is particularly egregious, and I heard
one of the members stand up and read a petition about this, is that there is a
lack of private roadside zoo regulation. We remember back to the member from
Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer, who brought in Bill 154 about private zoos. We remember
also some assurances from the McGuinty government that they were going to bring
forward legislation that was going to deal with private roadside zoos. Even
CAZA is concerned about private roadside zoos.

We
had an incident not too long ago of a wallaby that escaped from a private
roadside zoo. We're not saying that that wallaby did not get good treatment at
this private roadside zoo, but who's to know? There is not a lot of
oversight-there's no oversight, in fact-and unfortunately there isn't any
oversight in Bill 50 either, so that's a problem.

Now,
is this going to be left to regulation? That is why I stand here today. I
certainly hope that the government, when reading these transcripts, when
listening to this debate, will do something in regulation to make sure that
private roadside zoos get the scrutiny they need. I know that the member from
Willowdale wants that. I know every deputant who came forward wants that. We in
the New Democratic Party want that. So, again, let's hope that what's not in
the bill comes forward somewhere in regulation.

Another
concern that was often raised was about the definition of
"distress"-I will deal with that-and the other one was regarding
training of OSPCA agents. Certainly the general feeling out there among
deputants was that that training needs to be more extensive.

I'm
going to wander through this and I want to really, in this presentation, give
credence to our deputants. Here we purport to practise democracy, and where we
see democracy really in action at a grassroots level is when a committee like
this on Bill 50 goes out into the community-perhaps not as extensively as it
should have, perhaps not for as long as it could have, but it does go out and
listens to people coming forward. I want to honour those who came forward and I
want to say up front that we in the New Democratic Party are going to vote in
favour of Bill 6. But, and this is a big "but," we have concerns. We
hope that the government listens to the concerns. Even a bill that's an inch
forward, a step that's an inch forward, for animals is better than nothing, and
that's the spirit in which we support Bill 50. But there are problems and there
are possibilities still in regulation, so let's not say that this is over.
Please, let us continue forward and look at how this bill could be strengthened
for everyone concerned.

I
talked about the ultra vires action of section 6. I'm not going to deal further
on that. Suffice it to say that I don't think it would stand up in a court of
law. So for those who are concerned about it, I spoke to the Mississauga Humane
Society just this morning to find out and, again, they are concerned about it.
I assured them, "Keep on using your name; keep on using your name."
Part of the problem, of course, is that the OSPCA is the arbiter of who is or
is not an affiliate. This, again, is a problem of transparency and oversight.
There might be a humane society that wants to be affiliated with the OSPCA, and
they decide, "No." Again, where's the route of appeal there? There
are a number of problems with that section, but I don't think a problem in
actuality, because I do believe it's ultra vires. That is to say that I don't
think it will hold up in court.

Just
to break it up, because I know that the tendency of talks that go on for an
hour in the afternoon is to make people somewhat soporific, I'm going to break
it up with some other good quotes about animals. Here's one from Winston
Churchill. He said, "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on
us. Pigs treat us as equals." I think we can take some solace in that.

The
Mississauga Humane Society came and deputed before us. I'm just going to read a
little section out of the good work that they do. Again, this is one of the
humane societies that would be affected were Bill 50 to have its way and
section 6 to hold up. The Mississauga Humane Society takes in surrendered
animals that otherwise might end up at Mississauga Animal Services and be
killed. Remember, we've heard about euthanasia rates, kill rates, for some of
the services. The Mississauga Humane Society doesn't kill any animals. In fact,
they don't house animals; they actually find animals adoptive homes. And they
save the city funds and reduce their kill rates simply because of their
existence and their good work on behalf of the animals. The MHS also
contributes greatly to the city of Mississauga by reducing the overpopulation
of stray cats, for the same reason, that are almost everywhere in the city.

1330

A
cat quote-I have a cat, so I'm particularly fond of felines: "Dogs have
owners, but cats have staff." You've got to like that, George.

Hon. George Smitherman: I've got three cats.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You've got three cats? Well, I
don't know whether to be frightened by that or not, but we'll leave that be.

Moving
right along, one of the concerns about transparency of the OSPCA and its
conduct is, of course, the fact that they get taxpayers' money: $6.1 million,
in effect. That has been verified by ministry staff, Mr. Zimmerman, among
others-$6.1 million. Here is the problem: Who tracks that? We have heard it
said by the government side that this is a private agency, but here's the
problem: You can't have it both ways. You can't have a private agency that does
public business, which is clearly what the OSPCA does and what is going to be
done, of course, even more extensively with the passage of Bill 50, without
having public oversight.

We
in the New Democratic Party are particular fans of our current Ombudsman. We
think André Marin is the best. We like André Marin's reports. We think he does
a wonderful job. We think he's critical where he should be and he praises where
it's warranted. André Marin has no oversight over the OSPCA, none whatsoever.

Even
further, FOI, freedom of information act requests: We hear from the government
side-in fact, it was sent to Mr. O'Sullivan of the Humane Society of
Canada-that the OSPCA, their books, their bylaws, what goes on, where the money
is spent, their audit reviews, are not FOI-able. One might ask, with $6.1
million of taxpayers' money going toward this private agency, why are taxpayers
not allowed to find out how the money is spent?

I
was very concerned, of course, about the lack of transparency with the bylaws
of the OSPCA. I asked and asked and asked, and toward the end of the
deputations in our committee hearings, I finally received them. So I do have
the bylaws for the OSPCA. I would certainly suggest that someone who is
interested in them contact my office or keep pressing, because they're out
there. But it highlights the difficulty that even a member of provincial
Parliament has. If I have a difficult time finding the bylaws of a private
agency that gets government taxpayer money, how much more difficult would it be
for a private citizen or someone else? Again, this points to the lack of
transparency. Certainly, that's a problem. It's a problem where $6.1 million of
taxpayers' dollars are being spent and where de facto you have police abilities
given to a private agency-the right of warrantless entry, for example.

To
be fair, they have always had the right of warrantless entry. I know this has
come up; I know my colleagues to the right have raised this. Most people didn't
know this, and now they do, I hope: The OSPCA does have the right of
warrantless entry, whatever we may think of that. Personally, if there's an
animal in danger, I would like to have an agent be able to access that house,
that car, that pound, whatever, to look after those animals. So I don't think
it's necessarily a bad thing, but again, this highlights the lack of
transparency. If you have an agency with police powers, you need to have
transparency. You need to have the right of appeal, in the same way that the
criminal justice system gives us a right of appeal: You're innocent until
proven guilty. The animal owner needs that right, that you're innocent until
proven guilty.

So,
again, transparency, and that's all we're asking for here. We're asking for the
same rights of transparency for our citizens, and for our animals, for that
matter, that humans have before their criminal justice system.

Here's
a Mahatma Gandhi quote: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress
can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Well, certainly if
that's the case, we have a long way to go in Canada, and we have a long way to
go in Ontario.

One
of the concerns that was raised repeatedly about this bill, and certainly we on
the committee were all educated about, is the difference between animal welfare
and animal rights. I think the general population of Ontario and the general
population of this assembly would err on the side of animal welfare rather than
animal rights. I just think that's where we're at as a community.

But
even then, one might ask oneself about the huge exemptions in Bill 50, the huge
exemptions to wildlife, to farm animals-and again we're not talking here about
standard practices of farmers. We heard many deputations about that, and they
are exempt from the bill. We're not even talking about-although some of us
might want to go there-the standard practices and legal practices of hunters
and anglers. Those too are exempt.

What
we're talking about is the needless cruelty visited upon huge swaths and sorts
of animals that is not covered in Bill 50. I think of the case, for example-and
this gentleman is a lawyer, so perhaps that says something about lawyers-the
example of the lawyer gentleman-hardly a gentleman-farmer who had 50 horses
starve to death on his property. Those horses are not covered and would not be
covered by Bill 50. We have to ask about the extent of a bill that wouldn't
cover an egregious, horrendous act like that. Similarly, many of the
deputations that came before us mentioned cases of ridiculous, sadistic cruelty
to wildlife. We're not talking about normal hunting and angling practices;
we're talking about sadistic practices. Again, that is not covered by this
bill.

It's
interesting that that's certainly not the case in other jurisdictions where
animal welfare and/or animal rights bills have been passed, and I will get to
it. There's certainly an interesting case in New Jersey where, despite their
deeming that some farm practices are "normal," they still passed a
bill outlining them as egregious, as hurtful, and certainly covered them in a
piece of animal welfare legislation that was passed in New Jersey. If they can
do it not far from here, south of here, then why can't we do it with Bill 50?

Here
was our opportunity and, as you heard, as the minister got up and announced
third reading of this bill, this has come along once in, what, 100 years
almost, 90 years? Surely we don't want to wait another 90 years to have
something that will protect wildlife and farm animals just a little bit better
than we're doing already and what we're doing in Bill 50.

Again,
I mention my colleague-it's unfortunate he's not here-the member from
Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer, who brought in a bill looking at roadside zoos. I think
perhaps in doing that he was atoning for his role as parliamentary assistant on
that other infamous-I'll say "infamous" from the New Democratic Party
point of view-pit bull ban. I have to say that I'm really sorry that ban was
held up in Superior Court this last little while, because if Mr. Zimmer and the
members of the McGuinty government really were the animal lovers that they
profess to be, if they were dog lovers, they'd know that violence in animals is
not breed specific. Most vets will tell you that; it's not breed specific. If
you've got a violent animal-it could be a springer spaniel, it could be a
beagle, it could be anything-it's more likely to be a problem with the owner
than a problem with the animal. So we in the New Democratic Party are sad to
see that upheld, and we certainly think that maybe Mr. Zimmer was trying to
atone for his actions as parliamentary assistant when bringing in Bill 154.
Unfortunately, that too has gone up in smoke in this Legislature. Again, in
Bill 50, too bad, no protection of roadside zoo animals either.

1340

The
WSPA also came and deputed before us. They support Bill 50. They think it's a
step forward-a "significant improvement," as they describe it-and
that asking veterinarians to report animal abuse is certainly a good thing. But
even they admit, and I'm reading from their deputation, that "unlike Mr.
Zimmer's bill," the proposed legislation would not "proactively
promote better treatment of animals...." So they seem to give with one
hand and perhaps take away a little bit with the other-they are talking there
about the regulation of roadside zoos.

We've
certainly heard from others about standards of care, which are pretty
universally accepted as a benchmark for animal welfare. I'm going to read them,
because I think it's important that we hear them and then know whether Bill 50
really addresses them for most animals in the province of Ontario:

(1)
All animals must have access to a sufficient quantity of potable water and an
adequate supply of fresh, nutritive food appropriate to the species and
presented in a species-appropriate manner for the maintenance of good health
and to satisfy the animal's nutritional needs.

(2)
That the animal be provided with adequate medical attention when the animal is
sick or injured or in pain or suffering.

(3)
That the animal is provided with adequate protection to minimize the risk of
pain, injury,

disease, fear and distress.

(4)
That all animals must have access to adequate protection from the elements.
Shelters must be sufficient for accommodating all animals at the same time if
necessary.

(5)
All animals must have access to a comfortable resting area, appropriate bedding
and comfortable surfaces.

(6)
Transport the animal, if it is transported, in such a way as to ensure the
animal's physical safety and good welfare and not confine the animal to an
enclosure, pen or area without adequate space, with unsanitary conditions,
without ventilation, with inadequate light, with uncomfortable substrates and
surfaces, with uncomfortable temperatures, and together with one or more other
animals that may pose a danger to the animal, or that is in a state of
disrepair that is dangerous to the animal's health or well-being.

The
internationally recognized five freedoms, by the way, are freedom from hunger,
thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical
and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to
express normal patterns of behaviour.

What
they're asking for, because we don't see this in Bill 50, is that this be part
of the regulations that are looked at and are added to Bill 50 to give it some
weight; also some direction, quite frankly, to those who deputed before us who
wanted to know what this bill meant when it talked about animal distress. If
they added the five freedoms and the other general standards of care that the
WSPA is asking for, I think we might get a little closer to that mark.

Again,
I ask the government to please consider their submission when looking at the
regulations. Certainly, if the animals under human care were granted these,
then it would give us some jurisdictional mandate to look at roadside zoos,
among other enclosed areas, among other ways of holding and treating and
keeping our animals, that would stand up and would certainly be a boon to
agents looking into this.

One
of the interesting aspects of this-and I have to point this out, again in light
of our deputants' concerns-is, where are the agents looking at the pens, the
shelters run by the OSPCA, in light of these concerns? Again, one would hope,
with transparency and oversight of the overseers, if you will, someone is
checking their shelters and making sure the OSPCA's shelters and everyone's
shelters also meet the standards of the WSPA and other animal welfare groups in
light of this deputation. One hopes that is looked at.

They
go on and on to recommend a number of substrates of that in terms of captive
animals.

The
animal alliance network and the farm sanctuary movement wrote us a letter and
were concerned about some aspects of Bill 50, in light, again, of the animals
left out of its purview. They mentioned the New Jersey Supreme Court and its
ruling, which goes much further than Bill 50. I've mentioned that. Their
concerns fall under the following three headings: animals used for research,
native wildlife, and animals raised for food. They raise the concern that none
of those groups is covered by Bill 50. As I say, we're erring on the side of
animal welfare here, not on animal rights. Certainly, the bill does make
mention of animals used for medical research. We're not against that in the New
Democratic Party. We are concerned that animals used for research, animals in
the wild and animals raised for food are also treated well and concerned that
if we're extending warrantless entry by the OSPCA-if they're going to be
looking at the welfare of animals in other areas, why not in those as well?

Burlington
Humane Society, one of the humane societies that is and was affected by section
6 of this, in terms of being able to use their name: Again, I thank them for
their hard work, for their deputation. I mentioned their lawyer, a trademark
law specialist, who also gave the opinion that the province did not have the
authority to enact legislation in this regard, as trademarks, unlike business
names, are considered federal jurisdiction-so, the ultra vires comment which is
so important. Again, by all means, keep using the name "humane
society."

We
in the New Democratic Party never saw a reason for section 6 to be in this
bill. Really, it has nothing to do with animal welfare; it has to do far more
with human welfare, with one charity competing against another charity for
charitable dollars. It has no place in a bill respecting animal welfare.

I
know that the government has raised their concerns about fraud; I heard that
also from ministry staff.

By
the way, kudos to ministry staff. I have to say they worked really hard on this
bill. I thank them for their hard work, I thank them for the briefs that they
gave me, the bylaws that they finally found for me, the work that they did for
my office, on behalf of this bill.

Really,
there is not a concern about fraud here. Anyone who uses "humane
society" in a fraudulent way would, of course, fall under the jurisdiction
of the criminal justice system. They're already covered. If somebody
fraudulently tries to raise money for any kind of charity that doesn't have a
charitable status number, that doesn't do what the charity purports to do, that
comes ringing your doorbell and calls themselves whatever, that is already
covered by federal criminal justice. So we don't need section 6 in this bill to
protect people from themselves.

I
really put forward that this still has more to do with one charity battling
another charity than anything else and is not to do with animal welfare.

Here's
another deputation which I found somewhat interesting. This is from the
Southwestern Ontario Wildlife Coalition. They said something in their
conclusion in their statement to us: "This proposed legislation is
toothless. It is `feel good' legislation, drafted to make it seem as though the
OSPCA is a useful body (a point we do not concede) and that somehow the wording
of this act will make the lives of animals better. In very limited
circumstances, it might. But for all the large issues-those that cover the
95%-plus of Ontario's animals who are not pets or livestock-this legislation
does nothing"-again, their point of view, but again, I think with some
basis. However, as I said, an inch forward is better than nothing.

1350

They
concede that this act confers a modest increase in authority and responsibility
for the OSPCA, but it does not give them the responsibility or even the right
to act on behalf of the greatest number of Ontario's animals. Their authority
is limited to not much more than the family pet. So there you hear from one
side of the spectrum: animal rights and animal welfare.

It's
interesting to look at the bylaws that I did receive-by the way, not all of
them. They're here and certainly they will be, as I said before, in my office
if anybody wants to see them. But I would suggest that anybody and everybody
listening at home, anybody who is concerned about animal welfare, do read these
bylaws, look at them, hold the organization that issues them to account. Even
if Bill 50 doesn't give us the transparency we want, the oversight that we ask
for, or the accountability that we're due, perhaps citizens can themselves hold
this organization to account. We certainly would ask that.

Again,
I want to make it very clear. We heard from OSPCA agents. I'm sure many of the
agents who came before us have absolutely the best interests of animals in
their hearts and in the application of their duties. Nobody is faulting them.
People are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs, which is the oversight
of a somewhat public and somewhat private agency where taxpayers' dollars are
involved. That is all one is asking for.

Of
course, in a sense, we want to work with those agents. We want to be able to
better prepare them for what they're going out there to meet in the outside
world. We want, for example, to see that their training is extended. That's not
in Bill 50 either, but we certainly heard a number of deputations that seemed
to imply that more training is not only desirable but necessary for agents who
are acting on behalf of all Ontarians, quite frankly, where animal welfare is
concerned. Certainly, I heard some assurances from the government side that
that is going to be put into effect.

I
hope, and inveigh upon the government, that perhaps-this is probably not even a
regulatory matter-in your conversations with Hugh or the OSPCA you make sure
that that promise is upheld, because we certainly would want that for the
agents for their own protection, and we would want that for the animals.

Here's
a deputation that was somewhat interesting. I won't give the name of the
deputant in this instance, but it talked about what one has to go through in
order to be an affiliate:

"In
order to be approved as an affiliate, as I mentioned, we had to sign an
agreement with the OSPCA, and among other items in this agreement, article 9
states: `Shelters must be well-ventilated, have plenty of light, and be heated
to 60 degrees. Outside runs and shade must be provided.' Nowhere in this
agreement does it state the size the runs should be, and nowhere does it state
what a cat area or a reptile area should look like. The OSPCA has many shelters
under their umbrella, and we would guess that not one of them has the same
standards, so how can we impose standards on zoos or exhibits unless we have
them too?"-good question.

One
would ask, again, for what I mentioned at the very beginning. One of the
concerns was oversight of the overseers, that we make sure the shelters, the
pens and the runs owned and operated by the OSPCA have some oversight as well,
because, when giving them these extended benefits and extended
responsibilities, we should also be extending them the onus of those
responsibilities along with the rights.

I'm
just looking at some of these others. In terms of the ministry staff and their
briefing of me, after a few of the deputations went on-and I know that this
committee travelled around the province and did a lot of excellent work in
doing so and listening, and I believe we really did listen. The ministry staff
gave me a briefing-not myself alone but some other members of the committee,
and it was welcomed, and was extensive-in which they tried to answer some of
our concerns and questions, one of them being about warrantless entry not being
new. The other was about the number of complaints investigated. So I just want to
read these into the record, because I know they were questions that some of our
deputants had.

According
to OSPCA records from 2007, 16,834 complaints were investigated; 254 charges
were laid-211 Criminal Code charges and 43 provincial offence charges; 2,581
compliance orders were issued; and 5,171 animals in distress removed. It
doesn't say what happened to those 5,171 animals, but it does note that they
were removed. One would want to know, in the interest of transparency, the
follow-up there: How many had to be euthanized, how many were euthanized, how
many were adopted out etc.

There
were 35 appeals of compliance or removal orders received: 17 appeals were
rejected, abandoned or resolved and 18 appeals had completed hearings and
decisions. That was through the Animal Care Review Board.

They
answered the question, as I said, about warrantless entry not being new. They
answered the question about funding: $6.1 million. We have that from ministry
staff. They also go on to say-and this, to be fair, was before the amendment
was brought forward by the government-that there are only 10 known groups
operating in Ontario with the name "humane society" that are not
affiliated with the OSPCA. Section 6 of Bill 50, they said, again before the
amendment, would also repeal section 10 of the OSPCA Act to enable over 200
animal welfare groups that are not affiliated with the OSPCA to continue
operating legally. It's kind of an interesting statement. It doesn't jibe with
our research but, again, I read it into the record so that people can respond
and, because this is the last time they'll get to look at this bill-undoubtedly
it will be passed today-so that they then deal with the regulatory body and
send in their concerns, if they have concerns, about the details that I've just
read.

In
terms of funding, I can and will go into details with anybody who's interested.
We received that from ministry staff, so thank you for that.

To
continue, the International Fund for Animal Welfare also deputed-a prestigious
organization, one that we listened to with interest and gave the gravity that
it was due, I believe. They brought us back to the five freedoms which I
mentioned: freedom from thirst and hunger, freedom from discomfort, freedom
from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour and freedom
from fear and distress. They also had concerns, of course, with section 6, with
the humane societies. Just about everybody did.

My
concern is that the amendment did not go far enough. Unfortunately, on this
side of the House, we don't have the number of members necessary to force the
government's hand on something like this. We do give thanks to all of those
people out there-and there were hundreds, if not thousands of them-who sent us
e-mails demanding that section 6 be removed. We did what we could, but the
amendment to section 6 is due to them. So I want to thank them again.

Here
are some concerns: This was just from an individual, but I thought they were
very salient. She said that, in her estimation, inspectors didn't have enough
training or supervision. She asks: "Who hires, trains and supervises these
inspectors? Some of them are volunteer agents, and they have the powers of a
police officer. The OSPCA inspector who handled my case would have had two
weeks' training, a high school education and a driver's licence. That's all you
need to get the job. The chief inspector is hours away in Newmarket. Who
supervises their daily actions?"

She
raised this concern when this particular inspector came into her breeding area
where there were puppies, which of course needs to be sterile: "When the
OSPCA arrives, you ask them to disinfect their hands or step into a bleach bath
or put on boot covers or overalls. They're always refusing, saying, `You're the
first place I've visited today.' When I pushed them to disinfect their hands
before they touched my puppies, they told me that they didn't have to and
touched the puppies anyway."

This
could be hearsay; I'm not saying-that's a valid concern, but I'm saying that we
heard enough of that so-called hearsay that one wants to reiterate the training
aspect of the inspectors.

Of
course, the Humane Society of Canada has raised their own concerns about the
parliamentary assistant refusing to meet with them; the freedom of information
act supposedly not being applicable; $6.1 million, in effect, being spent; and
the qualifications for the chief inspector. What are the qualifications? Again,
something left to regulation, one hopes. But certainly one would hope that the
qualifications are extensive.

1400

Perhaps
what was most telling was when we heard from the veterinarians themselves. I'm
not saving the best for last, but I'm saving it.

The
Ontario Veterinary Medical Association submission to the Standing Committee on
Social Justice re Bill 50. They had some interesting things to say:

"(A)
Bill 50 should be expanded to include government oversight and public
accountability of the OSPCA. With the OSPCA being given greater
responsibilities and further enforcing authority, it would be prudent to have
the Ontario government have direct oversight of the organization, providing
accountability to the general public. This would include implementing an
obligation for the OSPCA to provide regular reports to the government.

"That
being said, we should also encourage the government to provide ongoing
funding." It is providing funding, but ongoing funding. Along with the
funding, they go on to recommend that the oversight be there.

"(B)
The Animal Care Review Board: In addition to the OSPCA, we recommend that the
government have full oversight of the Animal Care Review Board. The board
should be required to report regularly to the government and make their
decisions available to the general public. It is also recommended that Animal
Care Review Board members be adequately compensated for their time on the
board. This will assist in attracting and retaining qualified experts capable
of successfully fulfilling the board's mandate." It goes on.

"(E)
Veterinarians: Bill 50 requires veterinarians to report all suspected cases of
animal abuse. Although this adds to veterinarians' responsibilities and
obligations, not only do we welcome it, we have been advocating for this change
for many years. This obligation will make a significant difference in helping
to reduce animal abuse in Ontario. Providing veterinarians with protection from
liability when reporting suspected cases of animal abuse in good faith will
allow veterinarians to report with more ease and confidence. We strongly
encourage that this provision be kept in Bill 50." That's a good point,
because if you want them to report animal abuse, and then someone turns around
and goes after them in civil court, there should be some liability option
there.

Again,
I say all these things in full knowledge that Bill 50 will pass. I say this
again to the government in full hopes that the government will take these as
useful, helpful suggestions; that they will bring them into regulation; that
they will listen to the vast majority of deputants who ask repeatedly for some
clear themes-not going to be included in Bill 50, I'm afraid, folks, but
certainly to be included in the regulation.

Just
to rehash, first of all, that there's some oversight of OSPCA, of its
operations; that there's some oversight of the Animal Care Review Board; that
there's some oversight of the chief inspector; that there's some oversight of
the way $6.1 million of taxpayers' dollars are spent; that there's some
reporting mechanism. Certainly, we think that the goings-on of the OSPCA, being
a recipient of taxpayers' dollars to that degree, should be at FOIable, if not
under the mandate of the Ombudsman. Either/or would certainly help to solve the
problem, but certainly a reporting mechanism. This is only sensible. Any
accountant would tell you the same thing.

Section
6: It's amended. Thank you, at least for small mercies. At least it helps some
who call themselves humane societies, but it still has that egregious aspect to
it that there are many humane societies-I would suggest more than 10-who will
be covered by section 6, and who will not be exempt by section 6, even as
amended.

Now,
as I said, my advice to them, having talked to lawyers, is that they continue
to use their name until somebody comes after them. Then maybe we can raise the
question in the House if they do, because as far as I'm concerned, it's ultra
vires: It's not their jurisdiction; it's not our jurisdiction in the province
of Ontario; it is under federal jurisdiction. So there's that.

Next,
the lack of private zoo regulations: Poor Mr. Zimmer, completely ignored by his
government that promised to do something about regulating private zoos. It's
kind of sad. Actually, I was preaching up in his riding yesterday, up at
Newtonbrook United Church on their 168th anniversary. It's a wonderful riding.
They're happy to support animal welfare in the riding of Willowdale. Wouldn't
they all be very saddened to know that what was the genesis of a good idea has
been lost in Bill 50? Not only private zoos, not only Wally, but also all of those
animals raised for food, all of those native and wildlife species, all of those
used in medical research. Again, nobody is asking that those activities not be
exempt in some way, shape or form, but surely we can ask that there be some
kind of oversight of the welfare of the animals under their care, and perhaps
standard practice is just not good enough in the 21st century. Certainly that's
what we heard from the deputants. That goes to speak to the broad-based
problematic exemptions of Bill 50.

Finally,
the training of the agents who have been given the powers of warrantless entry,
among other aspects of their jobs, who are working really for a private
agency-sort of; sort of now a public agency. They should be given the training
they need. One would hope that that's more than a couple of days, more than two
weeks; that they really know what they are doing before they walk into that
breeding area, before they walk into that zoo; that they have someone along
with them. We've heard assurances of that from the OSPCA. Good, let's see those
assurances lived out, again, hopefully, in regulation.

Certainly
I would say, just to wrap up, that there is no cause ever for ignoring the
voices of those who do not ignore the voices of animals and those who care for
them. "Why, oh why?" we might ask. For example, the Humane Society of
Canada, the Burlington Humane Society, the Mississauga Humane Society, to name
only three bodies, why have they been shut out of the regulation process, of
the process of the writing of the bill? I mean, really, all we're asking for,
again, is transparency and what one should always ask from one's elected
representatives: that they respond to those who elected them. I can tell you
that across our ridings, across Ontario, we heard deputations that carried
those same themes in them. Those deputants want to be heard and they want to
know that their government is reacting and acting in their best interests and
the interests of the animals they look after.

Not
one of the deputations came forward without some recommendation now to be
looked after in regulation, including-and maybe I should finish with the
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, which also came forward and asked
about the fact that Ontario residents are still free to keep tigers, monkeys,
cougars or pythons as pets.

You
know, it has been a long process to get us to this point. We've travelled the
width and breadth of Ontario, we've listened to deputations from individuals
and organizations. Everyone here, and I speak in a completely non-partisan way,
I believe, wants the best for animals. There's no question about that. I think
what has happened here is that we have a government that finds there's an
organization that kind of came ready-made, that was willing to do the work of
government for less money than it would take the government to do it. I
understand that. I understand that in tight fiscal times you look around to
find ways to look after those under your care, including animals, and you try
to do that with the least spent of taxpayers' dollars. Here you have an
organization, the OSPCA, which does the work. They're doing the work of
government even though they're a private agency. They're doing the work of
government and getting taxpayers' money to do it.

1410

The
only thing that we ask, then, since the government has found this organization
ready-made to do their work for them, is that they at least do the due
diligence that's required in looking after that agency, in making sure the t's
are crossed and the i's are dotted; in making sure the $6.1 million is well
spent; in making sure the agents are well trained; in making sure that there
aren't such broad-based exemptions to the bill; in making sure that it's not
just about pets, that it's also about exotics and zoo animals; in making sure
that it also covers those animals that are exempted by definition, even if to
do so means to do it in regulation, and that it's still not okay for that
gentleman farmer to starve 50 horses to death with Bill 50 passed. We're
looking for better legislation to protect our animals.

Finally,
thank you to all the deputants. Thank you to all of those who came forward.
Thank you to Tim Trow of the Toronto Humane Society. Thank you to Michael
O'Sullivan of the Humane Society of Canada. Thank you for all your hard work.

Thank
you for all the hundreds of e-mails we received from people who are in support
of the general gist of Bill 50 but who would like to see it strengthened, who
would like to see far more in regulations than is there. Thank you to all the legislators
who sat on the committee and thank you to ministry staff who made it possible.

Really,
let's hope, finally, that there is a thank you that we can hear in some bare
whisper, in a language we don't quite understand as humans, from the animals
themselves.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity
to speak on Bill 50.

The
member spoke about a lot of the concern regarding the humane societies. I can
remember a time, for those who are unfamiliar with it, about 20-odd years ago,
when the Toronto Humane Society disallowed anybody to adopt a pet if the
individual worked in a grocery store with a meat department. I think some of
the concerns would be about the extent to which the regulations would have an
impact on individuals or societies throughout the province of Ontario.

The
member also spoke about zoos and roadside zoos. I know WSPA has provided
individuals with a definition of a roadside zoo, but those individuals around
the room have to think, what is the roadside zoo in their community? Is it the
one in Peterborough, the Riverview zoo? Or is it the Cat World, or the
Bowmanville Zoo, which is the oldest private zoo in Canada? What is the
standard for those zoos, and whose standard are they going to use?

For
roadside zoos and the standards that are being brought forward, the concern
that would be brought forward that the member was speaking about-and I am
making comments on the member's comments-is that there would only effectively
be two zoos in the province of Ontario, which would be the Metro Toronto Zoo as
well as possibly the African Lion Safari, with some moderate changes.

When
you speak about the proper care and control of animals, it's establishing a
standard by which it's being left to regulation that causes them concern. For
those who are unaware, the average boar bear, which is a male bear, has a
normal range of about 90 square kilometres. How are you going to fit that into
an area which individuals would say is an acceptable area, an acceptable
domain?

I
don't think anybody in this room-nor do I know anybody here nor do I know
anybody who wants to see animals mistreated. We want to ensure that those
animals are properly protected in our community, and we would do anything that
would be-but there is some strong concern about the impact of the regulations
and how they're going to be enforced.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I want to thank the member from
Parkdale-High Park for her extensive comments on the bill, her being there and
witnessing it; I believe she's the critic for the NDP. I know you've got a
large portfolio and it's very difficult, but you were there for the entire
time, so thank you for your input.

Yes,
we did arrange for the briefings and ensured that staff worked with you
diligently and co-operatively. And yes, I did ask them to give you all the
details, because that was a commitment that I had made, that I would provide
that data that was asked for, and they were very good in providing that. I too
extend my thanks to the staff for their hard work.

Just
a couple of quick comments about the some of the points that you made: First of
all, some of the measures that we've been taking to prevent cruelty include increasing
the annual funding of the Ontario OSPCA to $500,000 to support agent and
inspector training; the one-time funding on top of that of another $100,000 to
support training to begin the zoo inspection plan, in co-operation with MNR and
CAZA. There have been some ongoing talks with MNR and CAZA to ensure that that
$100,000 is used specifically to train in what they're looking at and what
they're doing to ensure that when they look, for the first time in some cases
but also at other times, they know exactly what they are inspecting, so they
can establish whether or not they're being treated as best as they possibly
should. Those are a couple of ideas I want to make sure you're aware of, and
are indeed already started.

There's
a one-time capital grant of $5 million to the OSPCA for the fiscal year of
2007-08 to improve and modernize their infrastructure. A lot of ridings have
already announced that some of that money has been made available to those
centres and shelters to take care of some of the concerns you've raised about
the present condition of some OSPCA shelters. Some of them have been able to do
great fundraising to keep these updated, but others need that help, and that's
that one-time $5-million capital grant.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

The
member for Parkdale-High Park for a response.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you to the members from
Brant and Oshawa for their comments. Thank you particularly to the member from
Brant for that clarification. Again, it's not so much the money; it's the
oversight of it. As you suggested, we want to make sure that the $500,000 and
the $100,000 grant are spent in the way that is intended, and that the one-time
grant of $5 million is spent in the way it is intended. This speaks to the
transparency of the organization itself.

It
will be interesting to see that transparency in an ongoing way. We understand
it's a private charity. If there are other grants after this one-time grant is
made, there should equally be a reporting mechanism on the way they're
spent-any taxpayers' dollars. I was pleased to hear that, and I look forward to
receiving those reports as they come in. If you could keep us updated, I would
appreciate that, and also being kept updated on any bylaws that happen.

Of
course, I would ask all our stakeholders to report back to me, if they could,
on section 6 and if anybody tries to invoke it. I'm most interested in that
because, again, I don't believe it's sustainable.

At
the end of the day, this is a step forward. It's a step forward that has taken
90 years, but let's hope it's not the last step. Let's hope that this is the
beginning of a new way of looking at animal welfare in the province of Ontario,
that this is the beginning, not the end, in a sense of Bill 50 even; that in
regulations we look at tightening it up, extending its jurisdiction and making
it stronger so that more animals are covered by it than, as you heard the
comment, just the family pet.

With
that, I'm delighted to have been part of this journey. It has allowed me to
meet all sorts of amazing people, and particularly to tour the Toronto Humane
Society, which I highly advise everybody to do and adopt an animal while you're
there.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I'm pleased to rise and offer some
comments on Bill 50. Particularly, I want to focus on some issues of concern
brought forward by constituents in the riding of Niagara West-Glanbrook who
have met with me or e-mailed me.

I
also want to note that I think a lot of impetus for this bill actually came
from some efforts of members of the Ontario PC caucus that had pushed similar
concerns about strengthening our animal protection legislation in the province
of Ontario.

You
may remember that in December 2007, Bob Runciman, the leader of the official
opposition in the Legislature, brought forward Bill 23, An Act to amend the
Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. This proposed,
among other things, extending to all animals of a domestic nature the standards
of care afforded to dogs and cats bred for sale. I think that a lot of what Mr.
Runciman suggested may have helped to inform the minister's decision in
bringing forward this bill.

I
also want to give a lot of credit to my colleague from York-Simcoe, Julia
Munro, who has been a long-time and powerful advocate for animal protection
legislation that accurately reflects the state of affairs in the province of
Ontario today. Ms. Munro comes from a lot of experience in this vein. In fact,
you may remember that An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals Act, 2001, was an initiative from Ms. Munro's work at
the time. That bill proposed to create standards of care for puppy and kitten
mills, and proposed ownership bans and potential lifetime ownership bans as
penalties. The act became a model piece of legislation for other jurisdictions.
I do want to commend my colleague Ms. Munro for her groundbreaking efforts in
2001 and my colleague Mr. Runciman for his work in 2007, as a forerunner to
this bill.

1420

Our
colleague from Simcoe North, Mr. Dunlop, has been our critic on this. He has
been through the committee hearings and brought forward a lot of sensible
advice on how to improve the bill, some of which was heard and some of which
was not. I do want to thank Garfield for circling some of the shortcomings of
the bill in its initial form.

By
way of example, one of the issues we on the PC benches brought forward is that
the bill allows the OSPCA inspectors a right of warrantless entry. We've
certainly see an expansion of this power under the McGuinty government, under a
number of acts, and we do want to raise the ongoing concern about the degree to
which the government has been giving rights of entry on to private property,
into buildings, without warrant. It has been expanded significantly under the
McGuinty government. Obviously, warrantless entry would be something that you
want to give only in the most extreme circumstances, not something that should
be broad-based across government agencies and ministries.

We
also raised a concern that the bill did not contain provisions to ensure
sufficient training and oversight, in light of the powers that have been
provided to the OSPCA inspectors under Bill 50. The Ontario Federation of
Agriculture, among other stakeholders, particularly those in rural Ontario, has
noted that Bill 50 had the potential to threaten the existing standards of
care, especially for agricultural workers.

Furthermore,
one of the concerns brought forward by the Ontario PC caucus was that Bill 50
did not specifically address standards of care in zoos, which has been an item
of debate in at least one if not more private members' bills in the Ontario
Legislative Assembly.

As
was referenced by my colleague from Parkdale-High Park, this bill called for
animal welfare groups not under the OSPCA to cease using the name "humane
society"-section 6-which has been an important part of debate here in the
Legislature and in committee.

I
want to commend my colleague from Simcoe North, Garfield Dunlop, for bringing
those issues to the floor and for pressing them for some changes. The changes
did not go as far as we had hoped in many of those areas, but we do feel that
we were able to represent the voice of many Ontarians in rural and urban
Ontario who had expressed concerns about those specific provisions.

Let
me get into a bit of detail.

Warrantless
entry-sections 11.4 and 12 of the bill-would permit OSPCA inspectors or agents
to enter buildings where animals are with or without a warrant. Nowhere in the
act, in giving this significant authority to inspectors, is consideration given
to the implications this may have on the animals and therefore, by extension,
on the farmer or landowner or caregiver to those particular animals. For
example, in their submission to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, the
Ontario Federation of Agriculture said the following: "Many livestock and
poultry operations employ biosecurity measures and protocols to maintain herd health.
Human contact with the animals is controlled to achieve animal health. On a
farm, even those individuals who have direct contact with the animals shower
and change clothes before entering the barns and again before leaving. These
measures serve to minimize possible disease transfer. Likewise, farmers do not
enter the barns of neighbours, again to avoid possible disease transfers."

Certainly,
representing a significant agricultural portion of the Niagara peninsula and
into the Glanbrook and upper Stoney Creek areas, this is a concern shared by
many farmers, neighbours and landowners in the rural areas.

I've
had the opportunity to visit poultry and livestock operations in the past, and
I know the very strict precautions that farmers take to ensure that those barns
are not contaminated in any way, which often runs against what many people who
have not visited these places may think-extraordinary measures to maintain our
food supply at the highest standard of care.

I
received a number of e-mails from residents in my riding that I will speak to,
a few examples, later on. One in particular, Diana Shore from St. Anns-not too
far from where my home is, in Wellandport-raised the warrantless entry issue
quite vociferously in her e-mail.

Another
active citizen from Caistor Centre, Walter Zimmerman, has felt so strongly
about animal protection, and has gone through an experience where he was trying
to act to protect cats which were endangered by a neglectful owner, only to
find that his encounter with the humane society seemed to target him more than
the owner he had seen throw cats from a truck while in motion. I'll get to Mr.
Zimmerman's concerns and recommendations momentarily.

Here's
the concern: Nothing in sections 11, 4 and 12 of the bill even acknowledges on-farm
biosecurity protocols. Nothing, for example, mandates SPCA inspectors or agents
to be trained in on-farm biosecurity protocols. Again, that's from the OFA
recommendation. So hopefully the minister will take that into consideration. No
doubt, the Minister of Agriculture will lobby on the OFA's behalf to include
biosecurity training for SPCA inspectors who may be going into these
environments. It seems that, if livestock is contaminated, if a farmer's income
is so affected or the food supply endangered in any way, compensation to
farmers for financial losses due to an inspector's failure to follow
biosecurity protocols is far more than reasonable.

Again,
on behalf of many of my constituents in Niagara West-Glanbrook, there is a
concern that if individuals were simply granted, through Bill 50, powers
equivalent to a police officer's, at the very least, measures must be taken to
ensure accountability, transparency and regular training of that individual and
the organization which provides its oversight. As I mentioned, my constituents
have highlighted this section of the act.

Section
6, as well, attracted a lot of attention during debate and from my constituents
who follow this bill quite closely. There is significant controversy around
excising section 6 from the bill entirely. Section 6 effectively removes the
right of an organization, except the OSPCA or its affiliate, to include the
words "humane society" in its name. Certainly, these terms are
synonymous with the hard-working and caring individuals who work on behalf of
animal welfare in our communities. Many of the agencies simply have not
affiliated with the OSPCA and found section 6 of the bill to be well beyond the
pale, and ask for it to be removed from the legislation in its entirety. The
Toronto Humane Society, for example-recognizable by its name for 121 years-is
one that raised that concern. A constituent of mine, Kalee McTaggart, has
brought this forward; I'll read that to you momentarily. The concern was the
bill would prohibit that altogether.

Because
of the pressures brought forward by various interested parties, by both the
official opposition and the third party, there was an amendment to the act to
prevent only future organizations from using the name "humane
society." We're still-at least, I am-not satisfied with that change. It's
an improvement from those that currently exist, but as much as we rejected this
restriction for existing organizations, we similarly reject it for any
potential future organizations. I guess we will see if this section of the act
is actually enforced. My colleague from Parkdale has expressed her concern
about whether this is even enforceable, whether it's ultra vires in the first
place. I guess that remains to be seen. We had hoped they would listen to the
amendments my colleague Mr. Dunlop had brought forward. Sadly, they have not.
We'll see if this half measure is appropriate.

1430

Mr. Dave Levac: Some were.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Some were accepted. I think I said
that earlier, my colleague from Brantford, to be fair. Yes, some of the
amendments were accepted, which we do appreciate. There have been improvements
made to the bill. There are some areas where we still express our concerns, as
do my constituents.

Mr. Dave Levac: I only want to be fair.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I always try to be fair, I say to my
friend, and I did note that early on.

Mr.
Dunlop, on behalf of the PC caucus, had brought forward an amendment to repeal
section 6 altogether. That was not accepted by the government members. They did
bring forward a half measure. It does protect existing organizations; we'll see
how it treats future organizations.

Kalee
McTaggart of Grimsby had the following to say about section 6 in her e-mail to
me dated May 5, 2008:

"Mr.
Hudak:

"I
am writing to you with regards to Bill 50, and requesting that section 6 be
removed. I am an avid supporter of animal rights and I think that removing
support to the local humane societies would be a huge mistake. Places like the
humane society give second chances to animals that have been abused, neglected
or that need immediate treatment. The humane society also refuses to euthanize
animals unless they are seriously ill or are un-adoptable.

"Please
support local humane societies and the animal welfare movement in Ontario by
removing section 6 from Bill 50 before the damage is done.

"Sincerely

"Kalee
McTaggart

"Grimsby
resident."

I
thank Kalee for taking the time to send me that personal message. I would be
interested to see if Ms. McTaggart is satisfied with the amendment to section
6. I do feel that we made every effort in the Ontario PC caucus to support the
call we heard from Ms. McTaggart and other constituents.

I
mentioned Diana Shore of St. Anns, as well. I know that Madam Speaker, coming
from the Hamilton area, is probably aware of St. Anns, which is close to my own
home in Wellandport, a significant agricultural community with a proud history.
Ms. Shore's e-mail is dated

November 13, 2008, so just a few days ago. I had
mentioned the enhanced powers of inspection-section 11-for the bill and such.
She said: "As a landowner and caregiver of farm animals I am fearful of
these representatives of this `charity' organization who will have more rights
than our police force. This Bill 50 has stripped me and my neighbours of our
personal sense of security ... which was granted to us as Canadians under the
Charter of Rights. These OSPCA officers have no background checks and the
majority have no idea or experience regarding animal breeds, care requirements
nor veterinary medical training. Experiences in Ontario with the OSPCA in the
last few years appear like `money grabs,' a way for the OSPCA to extort money
from their victims."

This
is very strong language from my constituent Ms. Shore from St. Anns, but I
think it reflects the concern in rural Ontario about the expanded powers of
warrantless search and the lack of training that some OSPCA officials may have
when it comes to agricultural operations.

She
mentions further in her e-mail, "Let's face facts; yes, there are puppy
mills hiding in our province"-and I mentioned earlier, as an aside, the
outstanding work of my colleague from York-Simcoe who brought forward the bill
to shut down puppy mills back in 2001-"and there are animal abuses that
should be stopped. Reality is that less than 0.01% of animal owners and
caretakers in Ontario fall into this group-the rest are innocent taxpaying
Canadian citizens. We the Ontario citizens/voters already have several
documented cases of the OSPCA wrongfully seizing animals and never laying any
charges."

She
goes on in her e-mail to talk particularly about the horse sector: "As a
horse owner, these cases of wrongful seizures resulting in the loss of healthy
and registered horses are increasing ... and Bill 50 hasn't even passed yet. We
fear these incidences will continue to increase as Bill 50 will further empower
the OSPCA."

She
makes a series of recommendations at the end of her e-mail. Most notably, I
want to highlight the first action she asks of the government: "Stop Bill
50 from passing until amendments for accountability are established and remove
all actions that strip us of our basic security as stated in the Canadian
Charter of Rights (i.e. warrantless entry)."

I
do want to say to Ms. Shore, to other constituents in my community and those
who are involved or are close to the agriculture sector, that we made every
effort to improve Bill 50 to ensure that the legitimate concerns of farmers are
taken into serious consideration with amendments to improve the bill. As I
said, some amendments were accepted, and sadly, some very important amendments
were voted down by the Liberal members of the committee that oversaw Bill 50.

I
also want to mention, in the time I have remaining, a very active citizen who
has taken the time to come in to see me, twice in the last number of months
alone, on the issue of animal welfare: Walter Zimmerman from Caistor Centre.
Walter Zimmerman, folks may know-my friend from Welland, Mr. Kormos, may have
seen Little Wolf Apiaries products around. Walter spends a good portion of his
summer at farmers' markets selling his delicious honey. I'll recommend it, for
fans of honey here in the Ontario Legislature; Walter has one outstanding
product.

Walter
is one of those citizens who wants to get involved to improve his community. He
recently appeared, by the way, at the Smithville council on an unrelated
matter-just to show that he is somebody who has a broad range of interests, not
only in agriculture; he was calling for some greater controls on ATVs and
snowmobiles that had gone on private property that had upset many local
residents and seniors and damaged farmers' crops. So it's consistent for Mr.
Zimmerman to show his concern about the welfare of animals.

Not
too long ago, Walter and his wife were driving along a local highway and they
saw an individual toss two cats from his pickup truck. Mr. Zimmerman, bless his
heart, stopped, took care of the two cats-he wanted to ensure that they were
okay-and called the police and the OSPCA in to help investigate and to ensure
that justice was done to the individual who had callously tossed cats, might I
note for the record, from a pickup truck while the truck was driving down the
highway. Sadly, Mr. Zimmerman's encounter with the SPCA was far from
satisfactory. To quote him, from his meeting in my office, he is concerned
about the expansion of the policing powers of the SPCA, saying they throw their
muscle around too much. He thinks the SPCA should respond, but use police for
more of the investigations in things like the warrantless entry.

Mr.
Zimmerman has also called for some sort of arm's-length review board as an
appeal mechanism for OSPCA matters, and that some kind of government lawyer or
crown prosecutor should be used in these cases so individual taxpayers like
himself are not on the hook if they find themselves on the bad end of an
experience, as Mr. Zimmerman did when he was trying to act in the best
interests of these two cats. So he will be pleased with some of the amendments
that the PC caucus advanced that were accepted. He will be disappointed, I think,
largely in those that were not accepted. He would like to see this bill
reopened sometime down the road to make the changes that he does suggest.

I
thank Mr. Zimmerman, Ms. Shore, Kalee McTaggart and others for their
interventions on this matter. I'm pleased to bring their voices here to the
Ontario Legislature as we debate Bill 50.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I was pleased to be able to be
here during the comments made by the member for Niagara West-Glanbrook. I note
especially his concern on behalf of farmers down in Niagara region and, I
trust, across the province who are of the view that they haven't been
adequately listened to in the course of the development of this bill. I'm going
to have a chance to speak to this bill for 20 minutes in just a few minutes'
time. There are some things that I want to put on the record-very much so.

I
was really, really disappointed in the rather inadequate, indeed inelegant,
response to the concerns about section 6 and its impact, among others, on the
Toronto Humane Society. It was something that could have been addressed far
more clearly, far more thoroughly, to resolve any donor concern and to avoid
what could well be some litigious efforts. The only people who really win are
the lawyers, at the end of the day, for all intents and purposes.

1440

I
was also saddened by how the Premier's office abandoned David Zimmer, the
government member for Willowdale, because you will recall that it was David
Zimmer who, just before the last provincial election, introduced a private
member's bill here in this chamber that was designed to regulate private
zoos-roadside zoos. I'm going to have some things to say about that, because
let me tell you, you go to places like-what is that, Marineland, down in
Niagara Falls? A sad, dusty, shabby place, and you find private zoos that need
regulation and inspection and improved standards.

I'm
going to have 20 minutes to talk about those things and a few others in just a
few minutes' time. I will be pleased to do that if the Speaker will accommodate
me.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I thank the member for his presentation
to us and his reference to the members from his caucus who have been identified
as champions of animal welfare. I want to remind him, and I'm sure, in terms of
him telling me that he always wants to be fair and balanced, that he would not
forget the fact that the member from Eglinton-Lawrence, Mr. Mike Colle, was an
extremely large champion. When in opposition, he introduced a private member's
bill that seemed to be saying to the government of the day, "This is
something we should be doing," and received very large support from the
people of Ontario. I believe it was 200,000 signatures on cards that basically
said it's time for us to move forward on a 90-year-old bill. I'm sure he would
not want to miss that opportunity to give him credit and, according to our
friend from Welland, making sure that Mr. Zimmer gets mentioned in his
championship of roadside zoo issues.

A
couple of other members in the past, I understand, Mr. Runciman, and I believe
there were others-I could go back in history-basically championed animal
welfare. So I wanted to make sure that Mike Colle got a little bit of a dessert
on the work that he did, that actually ended up being somewhat mirrored by the
bill that was accepted by the government of the day, except I think they exempted
breeders, if I'm not mistaken. The government of the day exempted breeders from
the strength of the legislation. I'm sure that as we move forward and continue
to work toward animal welfare, we would do our best to absolutely ensure that
it is entrenched wherever we can.

Let
me quickly talk about warrantless entry. I think everybody here knows that
there still exists an opportunity to do warrantless entry, with the permission
of the owner. If the owner gives permission, the inspector can go in and inspect
without a warrant. That's clear, because it's not something new; it's something
that existed. The other part is that, in this legislation, you can't do it in a
residence. Unbeknownst to some people, who think it is warrantless any other
time, it's not-

Mr. Tim Hudak: I thank my colleagues from the
Welland riding and from the Brant riding for their comments on my remarks and
mentioning the work of Mr. Colle and Mr. Zimmer in this field as well.

I
am pleased that I had the chance to bring forward just some of the e-mails or
conversations I've had with constituents in Niagara West-Glanbrook who wanted
to see this bill improved. Certainly, my experience with our local humane
societies and the OSPCA, as an MPP, has been largely a positive one. In fact,
my folks' dog, Gator, was a resident from the humane society in Niagara. Poor
Gator now has passed away but was a great dog for the 12 or so years that Gator
was with us. Gator, of course, was named after the Lakeshore Gators. My father
was the principal of Lakeshore, a high-quality school in Port Colborne, an
excellent school with some fantastic football teams and basketball teams, among
others that I know-

Mr. Peter Kormos: But Gator's gone.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, the Gator has now passed away-

Mr. Peter Kormos: That's sad.

Mr. Tim Hudak:-but is hopefully watching over the
Lakeshore Gators as they contend for another championship in the time ahead, as
an unofficial mascot for the team.

No
matter how strong the work is of local boards and organizations, we do have to
make sure that the work of inspectors is within balance and is respectful of
the unique concerns of the agriculture community, and needs to give due respect
to the long histories of humane societies in our province that may not be
directly affiliated with the OSPCA. I'm pleased that, through debate in the
Legislature and the hard work of my colleagues, most notably the critic, some
improvements were made to the bill, and we'll look to see how Bill 50 is in
implementation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further
debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: New Democrats are going to support
the legislation. We share some of the concerns that have been articulately
expressed about its impact on the agricultural community and the potential for
misapplication in the agricultural community, which is under a whole lot of
pressure, as you well know, you having been travelling the province as a
leadership candidate for the Ontario New Democratic Party, talking with people
in agriculture, with people living in rural Ontario and with farmers.

Just
yesterday I read a wonderful article-I recommend it to folks-in the Toronto Sun
by Antonella Artuso. She did a rather lengthy article about the Toronto Zoo. I
get back to Mr. Zimmer's initial efforts-David Zimmer, from Willowdale-to have
a regulatory regime for private zoos. Do you recall the incredible support he
received for that proposition, not just from within his riding and in the
province-because we got those e-mails and letters too-but from across North
America? While it's true that this legislation is applicable to the animals in
private zoos, this legislation is not, in and of itself, a regulatory regime
for private zoos.

Let
me talk about zoos in general, because that's why I made reference to the
Artuso article-very well done. It was an entertaining read and a very
informative one. It focuses on the Toronto Zoo, owned by the city of Toronto,
and the notorious junketing done by the Giorgio Mammolitis of Toronto city
council. This guy has travelled the world, Lord knows how many times over, in
the pursuit of zoo information, I presume. But the Toronto Sun has blown the
whistle on the Toronto Zoo board and their perks, their self-enriching perks at
the expense of the zoo. I had been to the Toronto Zoo, and every time I've got
somebody visiting here from outside the province or outside southern Ontario, a
trip to the Toronto Zoo is mandatory. If you think summertime is fun at the
Toronto Zoo, wintertime can be as wonderful, if not a little more challenging,
because it creates a totally different climate there, or a totally different
landscape.

I
grew up down in Welland-Crowland, really. As a matter of fact, I was just at
the Ukrainian Labour Temple, on Ontario Road, for the 90th anniversary of the
Association of United Ukrainian Canadians on Sunday-the Ukrainian Labour
Temple, that remarkable accommodation of the progressive thinkers. It's where
people who formed the United Electrical Workers down in Welland would meet, and
the Ukrainian Canadian community, along with other Eastern Europeans and
Anglos, would have this hall as a focal point for progressive organization. I
have been going there for a long, long time, not only for the food, but for
some of the earliest political speeches, as not quite a teenager yet, that I
heard at the Ukrainian Labour Temple. I don't have to tell you that they were
enlightened and progressive ones. There was no advocacy for unfettered
capitalism in the Ukrainian Labour Temple. If there was any mention of it, it
was in absolute condemnation. These are people who sought and fought to build a
better world. So I was there, in Crowland, and that's where I come from.

1450

The
reason I mention that is because when we were kids, of course, the Buffalo Zoo
was the zoo destination for people who lived in southern Ontario. While we were
fascinated with it as kids-and I'm talking about back in the 1950s-even
recalling that zoo is shocking because it was your classic concrete and iron
bar cages with sad, lonely lions pacing back and forth with the obvious
symptoms of lion dementia.

I
made reference a little while ago to places like Marineland in Niagara Falls.
Have you ever been there? I've never been. All I've had were some complaints
from people who have been, who describe it as a sad, seedy, dusty place. I
don't understand what the fascination is with somehow thinking that a captive
whale-have you ever been out to the east coast and seen whales out there off
the Gaspé, off Percé Rock? You're not up close. Sometimes you're closer than
you would ever think you'd be. I don't know, I just think it is a far more
exciting experience to see humpbacks and killer whales as they dive and arc.

It
strikes me as strange that there are some people who would somehow find it
entertaining and who would actually believe that the whale is happy. The
entertainment element of it is almost perverse-you know, the effort to impress
people with: "Look, the whale is smiling." Whales don't smile. It's
stupid. And whales don't enjoy performing. They're conditioned. They're trained
to do it in classic Pavlovian style with the promise of food. Whales are not domestic
animals. Of course, a few others here grew up in the 1950s, and we were
indoctrinated with the Disneyfication of wild animals, the Flipper syndrome;
remember? Before Flipper, it was Rin Tin Tin. Who was the collie? Lassie.
"Go call 911, Lassie." This Disneyfication of animals and wildlife in
general was very unhealthy. It was a very unhealthy indoctrination of my
generation and of subsequent generations.

What
I'm saying is, I increasingly question even the validity or legitimacy of the
entertainment zoo. There's been serious criticism-Toronto Zoo is one of the
finest in the world; make no mistake about it-criticism, for instance, of the
elephant enclosure, and if you've been there, you understand the criticism.
Smaller animals that have more square footage per size of animal are a little
bit better off. They can do what most animals do, especially nocturnal animals:
They can hide. Now, that frustrates the audience; right? You've got kids
screaming at their parents, "Where are the lemurs?" But I'd question
whether in the year 2008 there should even be such a thing as an entertainment
zoo, that like other zoos, the Toronto Zoo-annual multi-, multi-,
multimillion-dollar budget. When the natural habitat for so much of this
wildlife is being consumed at a voracious rate, maybe, just maybe, we as a
community should be making bigger investments in preserving the habitat of
wildlife where that wildlife is under attack. The deforestation of South
America, amongst others, is an assault on some of the world's most beautiful and
dramatic creatures, and I suspect we have an interest in helping them survive
in a hostile environment. So maybe zoos, if and when they do exist, should have
a focus or a purpose rather than being displays, because let's face it, in this
world of high-definition, widescreen television, PBS and other broadcasters
have brought us closer to any number of these magnificent or fascinating or
even strange creatures than we could ever dare to see them, even in an
enclosure.

It
reminds me-have you ever been to Coney Island? It's fascinating. Mermaid Avenue
at Coney Island-I think it is 20 years since I've been there. Coney Island is
like walking into a time warp. One of the fascinating things about Coney Island
was the wax museum. I realized, as I was walking around the wax museum at Coney
Island, that this was the creation of a phenomenon for people that predated
television, and indeed even popular and constantly displayed movies. This was
an opportunity for people who couldn't see television, and who perhaps had the
most modest of newsreels from time to time, to look at historical characters,
and of course the inevitable obsession with criminals and the bloodiest and
most vile of crimes. Surely most of the zoo phenomenon is very much the same
thing.

Maybe
the only zoos that should exist are zoos that are dedicated to a particular
purpose: dedicated to doing research, dedicated to reviving a species that is
at risk, perhaps with the goal of stocking its natural habitat with that
species. Maybe our public monies would be better spent in that way. That's not
to say we won't have places or shouldn't have places where people can come and
see this happening. But rather than entertainment, it should be educational.

I
give Antonella Artuso great credit for having focused on some of these very
issues in her article in yesterday's Toronto Sun. For the life of me, I don't
understand why we need private zoos at all; I just don't. There's a reference
to the old Riverdale Zoo in the Artuso article. Again, that was a zoo built and
designed on traditional and now very obsolete models and approaches. One of the
most fascinating things about the Riverdale Zoo-do you remember the Riverdale
Zoo? Yes, you do, east of Parliament Street. First of all, it's in a beautiful
part of town; it really is.

When
the Riverdale Zoo was transformed-they shipped out all of the exotic animals,
if you will, when the Toronto Zoo was built-what they kept was a little farm
with farm animals which, unlike lions and zebras and elephants and tigers, are
far more amenable to being in smaller enclosures and grazing, and far more
amenable to contact with humans. That experience, especially for kids in
Toronto, was as exciting and delightful an animal experience as you could ever
find, because here are kids starting to understand a different part of Canada
and Canadian culture; that is, the agricultural part of Canada and Canadian
culture, and the rural part of Canada and rural culture.

Having
said that, I know some people who specialize, for instance, in things like reptiles
or snakes-two examples-who do a great deal of work and breeding in an effort to
ensure the survival of these species and do it on a private basis, simply out
of their passion for those animals.

I
regret-I really regret-that Zimmer's bill was abandoned by the McGuinty
government.

1500

I
have no qualms about saying that this piece of legislation will give animal
inspection personnel the authority and powers that they need. But, look, all
the legislation in the world means squat if those various humane societies,
SPCAs, don't have the resources to do their job. Pass all the bills you want. I
don't know what it's like in Hamilton, but down where I come from, in Welland,
we've got a pretty cash-strapped municipality. Our SPCA down there that does
the animal protection and deals with animals and public safety is pretty
understaffed-the humane society-and under-resourced. You could have Godzilla in
the backyard on a Sunday afternoon, and you're not likely to get an officer out
because of the staffing problems. And as you know, police don't like dealing
with these scenarios; they're not trained to.

Obviously,
if the province doesn't step up to the plate-and I know there have been some
modest increases in the levels of support, but the biggest single funder of
this activity is municipalities, the ones that can least afford it. Look, I
have great sympathy. I was with Mayor McMullan from St. Catharines down at the
Chetwood community centre on Saturday afternoon, the seniors' centre, cutting a
ribbon there because they had renovated the place. I was there with Malcolm
Allen, the newly elected member of Parliament, Jim Bradley and a couple of the
city councillors. I had occasion to commend the city of St. Catharines for its
support for this small seniors' centre, because city councils are in an
unenviable position, especially in those towns like ours, where industrial jobs
have been lost and industries shut down. Not only do those communities lose
those jobs and those incomes, but they also lose the tax base. Then you've got
an irrational and unaccountable actual value assessment system that, oh, the
Liberals railed against when they were in opposition but have done nothing to
change since coming to power, other than to freeze assessment for two years, so
that now people are getting whacked, as Mr. Marchese is wont to say, after two
years of frozen assessment, upon opening up their assessment notices.

We're
going to get this bill ready for proclamation, I suspect, this afternoon. It's
interesting: Just this morning, I was talking to my neighbour Ms. Rosie, and
she has the Road Warrior, one of her several cats that are very well taken care
of. The Road Warrior was having some dental work done, some teeth removed, over
at Main West Animal Hospital. You've got to understand: I know the Road
Warrior. Ms. Rosie's cats are semi-feral. She spends a fortune caring for them.
The vet is-

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Are they half-pregnant?

Mr. Peter Kormos: No, no. Listen to me. The vet-I don't
know what kind of car he or she drives, but the vet has done well by Ms. Rosie
and her semi-feral cats. Well, you've got to understand. There are feral cats,
there are domesticated cats and there are cats that can't quite make up their
minds.

Look
forward to Mr. Zimmer's continuing advocacy for regulation of private zoos. We
need that debate, because we have to, I think, at this point decide whether
there is even a role for private zoos. I'm talking about commercial zoos as
compared to private collections or people who have a serious scientific
interest in a particular animal or breed of animal. It's a lost opportunity.
Zimmer is one of the best on the Liberal benches, and for him to have been shot
down like that by the Premier is truly regrettable.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: The member from Welland is well
known for his presentations and his capacity to get to the point and also
entertain us at the same time, so I appreciate some of those pieces of
entertainment. I'm sure Mr. Zimmer would appreciate that too.

But
having said that, I do want to reinforce a couple of the points that he made
about the roadside zoos. It has not been lost on the government in clarity.
We've talked about it at committee. We talked about it in the briefings. We
talked about the potential of where we can assist in doing that. The government
is taking some action, as I pointed out to the critic, to ensure that some of
that gets dealt with on the financial side, which is the increased funding of
up to $500,000 to support inspection and agent training and an additional
one-time $100,000 funding to support training specific to zoo inspection plans,
working with MNR and CAZA, in order for us to understand what they are doing to
bring that safety and the concerns that were raised by Mr. Zimmer, the member
from Willowdale, in his attempts to ensure that there was some type of
inspection happening. So some of those things were happening, as the member
well knows.

In
terms of some of the areas that the legislation does not deal with-which is
fair, because it was pointed out in the presentations as well, and in the
briefings, that the three areas were before OSPCA inspection-we would have the
accepted farm practices so that we wouldn't be seen doing anything
extraordinarily different from what we normally do with agricultureal standards
of animal care and the science and research under the animal bill that already
exists in terms of taking care of animals that are being used for research and
science. The third area would be the anglers and hunters, which were exempted
from that because they are already covered under legislation.

Having
said that, the critic from your party indicated that she wanted to see those
expanded in ways in which regulation could tune that up, and I think that is
being discussed as we speak.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Mr. John O'Toole: I always listen carefully to the
member from Welland because he brings a lot to the discussion, and in this case
he certainly brought up a number of interesting and valid concerns.

From
our point of view in our caucus-and I can't speak for everyone in our caucus,
but I know that we want to make sure that animal safety is a priority.
Certainly I would think that some of the information we're receiving from our
constituents-indeed, in my riding, I have three zoos that I have heard from.
One is quite well respected, the Bowmanville Zoo, and the zoo keeper there is
Michael Patrick, and I believe his wife is a doctor of veterinary medicine. As
well, I have Jungle Cat World, which is in Orono, on 35-115, and is mostly
exotic cats and other species. Also, they're very much in support of having
standards; in fact, they believe that they are in compliance today. However,
with this particular bill, there seems to be a bit of a non-animal issue going
on here, where the thrust is to eliminate any reference to a private zoo. This
has them concerned.

Northwood
is another zoo in my riding where they have a similar concern. They're very
much interested in animal welfare, to the extent that they are actually
recovering animals that perhaps are in unsatisfactory conditions and are acting
in the best interests of protecting the animals, and yet they feel threatened
as well.

These
organizations in my riding have called me, talked to me and felt that there is
not the proper balance in this legislation. So I think the member from Welland has
raised some issues, as we have as well, but the government at the end of the
day has the majority of the votes and they will ram this through without much
consideration for any amendments that we might have made. So with that, I just
want to be on the record as saying that I listened to the people that look
after animals in my riding and I think they're right.

1510

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: What can one say about the member
from Welland? We're just really, really glad he's on our team in the New
Democrats. I heard his comments about roadside zoos address the fact that this
legislation doesn't have, really, anything to say about zoo animals, farm
animals, animals involved in medical research, or native and wildlife. The fact
that someone can still have a tiger as a pet without breaking a law says a lot
about the inadequacy of Bill 50. We hope that the government takes that to
heart and expands, through regulation, the ability of the inspectors to inspect,
to go into situations where a tiger is kept as a pet. I certainly know that
when I spent time in the country there were many of my farmers who had pets
that were exotics and, thankfully, most of them looked after them relatively
well, but the fact that they could have them and nobody knew and nobody oversaw
the treatment of those animals, including the possible escape of those animals,
as we saw with Wally this last week, is a problem and needs to be addressed. So
the member from Welland really highlighted that.

I
promised another good quote. Here's one from W.C. Fields, a good one:
"Horse sense is a thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on
people." I like that. Just so you know.

Certainly,
we hope that this isn't the end of this conversation; that the government
continues to feed us and feed myself the information that I requested. We hope
that the government takes to heart what they've heard from the deputants in
terms of regulation and we hope that the government doesn't stop in bringing forward
legislation that has more teeth in it, that's going to protect animals across
the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions
and comments? The member from Welland, did you wish to make a response?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Thank you kindly, Speaker. The
bill is going to pass in, I suspect, a few more moments. It's then up to the
government to make sure that those charged with the responsibility to address
animal welfare and public safety vis-à-vis animals, have the resources that
they need to do their jobs.

I
should mention that Ms. DiNovo, the member for Parkdale-High Park, was the
steward of the opposition to this bill for the NDP during its course through
committee. She took on that responsibility because of her passion about the
issue, but also her concern for the Toronto Humane Society and the manner in
which it was going to be very negatively impacted by the then-section 6. Ms.
DiNovo was an enthusiastic advocate for the THS, Toronto Humane Society, and
for those who care about animal welfare. She displayed a remarkable pan-Ontario
sensitivity, because while an urban and urbane woman, she also demonstrated a
remarkable familiarity with, as I say, the culture of rural Ontario, the
culture of agricultural Ontario and the needs of those very specific
communities.

To
Mr. Zimmer I say, continue to struggle. We join you in your battle with your
Premier's office to get a proper zoo regulatory regime enacted in this
province. I couldn't be prouder than to stand in solidarity with you in your
struggle with an oppressive Premier's office that so often ignores its back
bench and simply calls upon them as voting machines and to do the heavy
lifting, but takes all the glory for itself.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Are there
any other honourable members who wish to participate in this debate?

Seeing
none, Mr. Bartolucci has moved third reading of Bill 50. Is it the pleasure of
the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All
those in favour, please say "aye."

All
those opposed, say "nay."

I
believe the ayes have it.

Be
it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.